On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:07:26 -0500
"G. Ken Holman" <gkholman(_at_)CraneSoftwrights(_dot_)com> wrote:
Allow me to try again, please.
Consider an XML document whose content model for <a> is: ( b, c?, d )
This is a valid instance:
<a>
<b/>
<c/>
<d/>
</a>
But, this is also a valid instance:
<a>
<b/>
<d/>
</a>
So, given the second instance, I run it against two stylesheets:
Stylesheet 1:
<xsl:if test="not(a/c)">I'll make an assumption about a missing
C</xsl:if>
Stylesheet 2 (with a typo in it because the user mistyped):
<xsl:if test="not(a/cc)">I'll make an assumption about a missing
C</xsl:if>
Without a schema to know that <cc> is not an acceptable element,
there is no way to distinguish the two above if statements. With a
schema, the second one is clearly in error. But without a schema, it
does not make sense to issue an error or warning about the first
stylesheet, because it is a bona fide test I want to perform
regarding the absence of <c>. Hence, it cannot make the same
assumption about the second stylesheet, and so again cannot issue an
error or warning.
Again you're assuming the presence of a schema?
Review that given an input XML instance only.
The lack of a trigger for the xpath provides information
that is useful IMHO.
I'm not arguing that extra information may be gleaned from the Schema,
just that in many cases such a schema may not be available,
an instance being used is more usually available.
--
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--